Nomadic Thoughts: To defend or not to defend: one big question

Sunday, February 05, 2006

To defend or not to defend: one big question

As an undergraduate, I majored in Religious Studies as well as Anthropology. I therefore have an obvious interest in the recent story developing all over the world where thousands of Muslims are rioting and causing violence and even more are expressing outrage at the publication of a series of cartoons in a Danish newspaper depicting Muhammad. The most cited one is him wearing a lighted bomb as a turban. Aside from the obvious stereotype, most Muslims are outraged more about the fact that Muhammad was depicted in the first place. Islam is a very iconoclastic religion, fiercely opposing any visual representation of their god, the Prophet Muhammad.

At first I hastily jumped to the conclusion that uproar was the result of a minority of fundamentalist Muslims overreacting to stereotypical and insulting images. Only after some of my undergraduate training resurfaced that I remembered that an image of Muhammad, tasteless or not, is a grave insult to the religion and those who follow it. We see images of Jesus everywhere including churches (which is effectively a manifestation of God) and the popular media often parodies God Himself. This does not happen with Islam and is one reason I am a vigorous proponent of teaching world religious as young as middle school and definitely in high school. That is not to say that I think the sole purpose of this is to avoid offending a handful of religious zealots or promoting political correctness. Understanding a religion other than your own is one of the most useful things you can do as a human being. This is why I chose to become a religious studies major a few years ago. What started out as idle curiosity eventually led to a self-realization that, ironically, hadn’t occurred as I grew up with a Christian worldview.

The violence and anger that is erupting in the Muslim world shouldn’t be surprising to any of us. Most Americans have a gross misunderstanding of Islam, its history, and most importantly its fundamental beliefs. I am not even halfway to a full understanding myself. I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is a religion that teaches hatred, ignorance, and violence. To say that Islam is misunderstood and is a religion of peace is a misunderstanding as well. I certainly don’t agree with the senseless violence occurring over these Danish cartoons but I can begin to understand why so many are outraged. I am still grappling with the implications of this. How can one defend an individual’s right to be angry if the basis of that person’s anger is a worldview that is inherently violent and destructive? Welcome to the real world. They don’t teach you this stuff in Sunday School.

Posted by Will at February 5, 2006 10:54 AM in In the News | Personal Reflections

Comments

Don't you think that statements like "Islam is a religion that teaches hatred, ignorance, and violence" and calling Islam a "worldview that is inherently violent and destructive" are overly simplistic and both gross overgeneralizations on a topic that is much more complex? What compels you to the belief that Islam is "inherently violent"? What about the millions of peacefully practicing Muslims around the globe? What about the ones who have openly denounced the use of violence? No matter how violent the Kuran is, it is a religious text, the likes of which are up for reinterpretation in modern societies, as is seen in almost every religion known to man. As with much, it is what you make of it. Some Muslims are violent, but is the faith itself at its core inherently violent? How do you account for those who are not violent? Is Islam any more "inherently" violent than any other religion in the world? Even Buddhists, who are popularly thought of as saintly little rolly-polly guys have been known to shank a fellow flesh-bag from time to time.

Maybe these kinds of negative overgeneralizations are "why so many are outraged".

Posted by: itsalljustaride at February 7, 2006 07:39 PM

Thanks for your comment. I don’t believe that I was over generalizing. Having studied Islam in an academic setting, my understanding of it is that when observed from a neutral point of view, one cannot conclude anything other than it is an inherently violent religion. When an entire belief system is based on revelation (in this case the Prophet Muhammad) and that revelation is said to reside in the pages of the Koran, it is not an over generalization to criticize the religion. If there were multiple sources of revelation less violent or whatever, my opinion may be different. But this is not the case. A “true” Muslim subscribes to the ideals and philosophies in the Koran and those happen to be based on violence toward and judgment of other human beings.

As for the peaceful Muslims you speak of, it is my opinion that they are practicing a perverted form of Islam that is not consistent with the message of Muhammad. That being said, I am not the arbiter of what is and is not Islam in the eyes of a believer. The individuals carrying out violence in the name of Islam over the Danish cartoons are in fact being consistent with the message of Islam. This of course is not laudable under any circumstances but only highlights the nature of that particular religion. I come to the same types of conclusions when examining the vast majority of Christians who oppose abortion and homosexuality on religious grounds (i.e. because it’s in the Bible) but completely ignore a multitude of other objections clearly laid out in the same book. It’s contradictory and inconsistent and they too are practicing what I feel is a perverted form of their religion.

Posted by: Will at February 7, 2006 10:15 PM